FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Plaintiff's Claim
Tawana McCarty Long, 25, sued Levi Landham, also 25.
Mr. Landham is the father of her child.
She sought repayment for an unpaid loan.
Ms. Long worked as a sales associate at a boutique.
She started this job in February.
Before that, she was unemployed for about six months.
During her unemployment, she was in school.
Her mother helped support her.
Defendant's Financial Support
Ms. Long confirmed that Mr. Landham also sent her money during her unemployment.
She was unemployed from June or July 2016 until February.
She lived in Nebraska during this time.
Mr. Landham initially lived in Nebraska.
He then moved to California.
He moved to California at the end of January.
He returned to Nebraska in February 2017.
While in California, he worked a construction job.
Mr. Landham claimed he sent Ms. Long $600 to $700 monthly.
Ms. Long did not corroborate this amount.
She stated he sent $300 a month.
Judge Judy suggested the truth was "somewhere in the middle."
The Alleged Loan
Ms. Long claimed she loaned Mr. Landham $650.
She said she gave him money for bills after he returned from California.
She believed it was a loan, not a gift.
Mr. Landham claimed the money was a gift.
He stated she offered to help him because he did not have a job.
He also claimed she asked him to return to work on their relationship.
He initially stated the amount was $450.
Ms. Long's text messages later confirmed the amount was $650.
Defendant's Return to Nebraska
Mr. Landham returned from California in February.
He was living with his mother in Nebraska.
He did not have a job at that time.
He admitted he needed money for bills.
He said Ms. Long offered to help him before he came back from California.
He stated she told him she would help him out.
He claimed she just said "okay" and gave him $200.
He also said it was his intention to come back.
He stated she wanted to work out their relationship.
He claimed he came back because she wanted him to.
The Nature of the Relationship
Ms. Long's complaint stated they broke up in March.
Mr. Landham's testimony contradicted this.
He admitted to sleeping at Ms. Long's home in June.
He slept there on June 11th and June 13th.
He also admitted to sleeping in the same bedroom.
Judge Judy questioned Ms. Long about her claim of being broken up.
Ms. Long maintained they were broken up in March.
She said she loaned him money because he was the father of her child.
She stated his mother was sick and he had no money.
She claimed he came to her with a "sad story."
Judge Judy's Scrutiny
Judge Judy focused on the timing of the breakup.
She asked Mr. Landham where he was living in June.
He confirmed he was living with his mother in Omaha.
Judge Judy asked if his mother would confirm this.
He said yes.
She then asked what he was doing at Ms. Long's home in June.
He initially said he wasn't working.
Judge Judy repeated the question.
He then said he got injured.
She asked if he spent the night there in June.
He answered yes.
She asked if he slept in the same bedroom in June.
He answered yes.
Contradiction on Breakup Status
Judge Judy highlighted the discrepancy.
Ms. Long's complaint stated they broke up in March.
Mr. Landham admitted to sleeping at her house in June.
Judge Judy stated, "That's not being broken up."
This directly challenged Ms. Long's claim that they were clearly broken up when the money was given.
The judge implied that the relationship status affected whether the money was a loan or a gift.
The Defendant's Counterclaim
Mr. Landham had a counterclaim for assault.
He claimed Ms. Long assaulted him in June.
After Judge Judy's ruling on the main claim, he asked about his countersuit.
Judge Judy dismissed his counterclaim.
She stated, "It's a nice countersuit. Good. Bye."
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Tawana McCarty Long.
She awarded Ms. Long $650.
The judge's decision was based on the evidence presented.
The text messages from Mr. Landham agreeing to pay back the money were crucial.
Despite the conflicting claims about their relationship status, the evidence supported a loan.